Peter Eisentraut <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > Tom Lane wrote: >> It's too bad that gcc doesn't have a >> -Wno-snarkiness-about-system-headers-thank-you switch.
> It does have a switch to *add* snarkiness about system headers, but does > not do it by default. > The problem in this case is that an uncast null pointer constant is not > always a sufficient sentinel for variadic functions, as explained here: > <http://c-faq.com/null/null2.html>. Sure, but on a machine where it actually matters (ie one where int and pointer are of different sizes), I'd expect NULL to be #define'd as "((void *) 0)" not just "0". You should *not* have to inform the machine that NULL is a pointer. regards, tom lane ---------------------------(end of broadcast)--------------------------- TIP 2: Don't 'kill -9' the postmaster
